CRP(MD)/2416/2026 of KINGSLY JINY Vs SUMITHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 03.07.2026 passed in IA.No.5 of 2021 in OS.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, and the first respondent is a third-party purchaser of the suit schedule property. The first respondent filed I.A. No. 5 of 2021 seeking to raise the order of attachment before judgment, contending that she had purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration and was a bona fide purchaser.

3. The petitioner instituted O.S. No. 71 of 2019 against the second respondent for recovery of money. In the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A. No. 3 of 2019 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), seeking attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the defendant. The order of attachment was ultimately ordered to be effected on 11.02.2021.

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026

4. In the meantime, the first respondent had purchased the suit schedule property from the second respondent on 06.01.2021 for valuable consideration. She contended that, before purchasing the property, she had verified the encumbrance certificate and found no subsisting encumbrance affecting the property. She had also verified the revenue records, which indicated that the second respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to her, she purchased the property bona fide, without knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for attachment before judgment. She further contended that she came to know of the order of attachment only subsequently. On these grounds, she filed I.A. No. 5 of 2021 seeking to raise the attachment.

5. On behalf of the first respondent/third-party purchaser, she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, the petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs. R1 to R7.

6. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the submissions of the parties, the trial Court held that, although

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 the petitioner had caused a publication to be made in a newspaper, marked as Ex. R3, and had also sent communications to the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank and the Sub-Registrar’s Office, marked as Exs. R4 and R6, respectively, those circumstances were insufficient to establish that the first respondent, being a third-party purchaser, had knowledge of the petition filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.

7. The trial Court further observed that, by the time the order of attachment was ordered to be effected on 11.02.2021, the second respondent/defendant had already sold the suit schedule property to the first respondent. It also took note of the fact that the suit had been instituted for recovery of money and was not a suit concerning title to the property. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the first respondent and raised the order of attachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had instituted the suit in the year 2019 and had caused a publication to be made in the Dinamalar daily newspaper on 20.05.2019.

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 It was further submitted that notices had been sent on 04.05.2019 to the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank and the Sub-Registrar, as the property had already been mortgaged. However, the Sub-Registrar had not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the order passed by the trial Court be set aside and that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner instituted the suit in the year 2019 and filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment before judgment. However, the order of attachment was ordered to be effected only on 11.02.2021. In the meantime, the first respondent had purchased the suit schedule property on 06.01.2021 for valuable consideration.

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026

11. The first respondent has specifically contended that, before purchasing the property, she verified the encumbrance certificate and the relevant revenue records and, relying upon those documents, proceeded with the purchase. The materials placed on record do not establish that the first respondent had knowledge of the attachment proceedings or that she purchased the property with the intention of defeating the petitioner’s claim. In the circumstances, the first respondent appears to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

12. Merely because the petitioner had instituted the suit and initiated proceedings seeking attachment before judgment in the year 2019, it cannot, by itself, be concluded that the first respondent had knowledge of such proceedings when she purchased the property on 06.01.2021. The fact that the attachment was ordered to be effected only on 11.02.2021 is also a relevant circumstance to be considered. In the absence of sufficient evidence establishing that the first respondent purchased the property with notice of the proceedings or with the intention of defeating the petitioner’s rights, the contention that the sale

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 was fraudulently effected to defeat the petitioner’s claim cannot be accepted in the present proceedings.

13. In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. However, if the petitioner contends that the sale deed dated 06.01.2021 was executed by the second respondent with the intention of defeating or delaying the claims of creditors, it is open to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including proceedings under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, subject to establishing the statutory requirements. Such a contention cannot, by itself, be a ground for setting aside the order of the trial Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 petitioner is at liberty to challenge the fraudulent sale in the manner known to law.

08.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Additional District Court, Kuzhithurai.

C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2416 of 2026 08.09.2026